W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG Home > EOWG Minutes

EOWG Minutes 26 March 2004 Meeting

on this page: Attendees - Outreach Updates - Business Case - Next Meeting


agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2004JanMar/0147.html



Outreach Updates

CSUN 2004

JB: lots of stds harmonization sessions

JB: session on stds harmonization, lots of interest

JB: wendy gave a session about transition WCAG 1.0 -> 2.0, fair amount of interest too

JB: matt gave a session about visual verification but little attendance, maybe we should explain more what the topic is about

JB: marja presented on a paper on accessibility of web collaboration

JB: many sessions related to web

SAZ: many tools and AT demos, more than last year

Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility

Background (from agenda):


JB: how many people on the call have had time to read through the entire suite from top to tail?

LC, AA, HS read through it

JB: i really recommend that everyone do that

JB: strongly recommend everyone try to go through entire suite in one sitting soon

JB: it's long but it makes a difference if you read through the whole thing at one time

JB: it's important to get any edits in the next few days and sign it off

SLH: questions and directions at the beginning of each page but really important to look at it

JB: any general comments?

BM: that really works for me

BM: i had trouble getting overview on the document

BM: this helps me get focus and find consistency throughout the document

BM: for me it's help

JB: do people like that question format?

DS: i like it for roughly the same reason as blossom was saying

JB: shawn, you were looking for help with the right wordings

JB: i've sent some comments offline

JB: summary, maybe identify might be helpful

HB: i second that

SP: i think the questions are alright but there are some explanatory text in some documents

SP: is that necessary?

JB: you mean take out the explanatory text?

SP: yes, there seems to be a redundancy

SLH: sometimes there are redundancies but sometimes it is not repetitive

JB: would it be possible to take this unique comments into the questions or the text?

SLH: sometimes it might be helpful to have

JB: i had the opposite feeling then sailesh, actually the text helped me to get focus before i plunge into the information heavy of the document

HB: it is not clear to me sometimes that the text corresponds to the title

CL: i'm leaning to sailesh's comments

LC: would it be difficult to use the document if the questions were links and people would jump back and forth?

SLH: in some cases it might not be good to remove the text, for example on social factors

JB: what about trying to condense the text as much as possible? it might keep the readers from slowing down but it would ensure that they get the most possible out of the document

SP: sometimes the questions seem rhetorical

SLH: at the TP we had questions like "do you care about people" and we worked on making them less rhetorical

JB: actually i don't find questions like "do you care about reducing server low" such a rhetorical question, it really depends on the environment of the organization

JB: if one considers the broad spectrum of organization sizes and models

SP: on the financial factors maybe we should rephrase the questions to reflect the content more

JB: what do others think?

DS: i like the document the way it is, another pass with consistency might be ok

AA: i'm reasonably comfortable with it, i'd spend the time cleaning up other parts

CHANGELOG request to check the consistency but keeping the time and effort limited

BM: propose "questions to consider"

SLH: "questions to consider" might be not specific enough, better are questions to help focus

JB: changelog attempt renaming the relevant headers

SLH: on the legal and policy factors, i'm not comfortable with the duplication

SLH: we didn't get enough time to discuss this, how about we go through the questions sent per e-mail on monday?

SLH: section "considerations for different types of organizations" is too repetitive

JB: the length of the suite is considerable, some redundancy might actually be good

SLH: i'm not comfortable with some of the separation of the content, we don't really have more to say then to point them to the policies page

HB: maybe along the lines of viewing the global market

SLH: we have that as the last bullet, section "addressing multiple standards or guidelines"

JB: tone seems different then the rest of the suite, it seems to reflect an opinion

SLH: judy, do you have an idea for a rewrite?

JB: do we have agreement on such a change?

DA, AA, BM, SLH agree

CHANGELOG add Stds Harm discussion to "developing a policy" suite

CHANGELOG slh to redraft "addressing multiple Stds" in legal and to remove 'opinions' - use jb's notes

JB: any suggestions for a title for the resource?

HS: maybe "identifying the case for web accessibility"?

JB: the question is, do we need to rename it from "Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization" to something else?

AA: after the TP discussion, this seemed to be the best solution, i support it

HB, CL support it too

HS: we left out "business" because of financial catch and now we have "business" again

HS: i can live with it, but is it ok?

JB: we had a discussion at the TP and we came to the conclusion that "business case" was more generic than we initially assumed and "case" alone might also be confusing

HB: leaving out "business" might broaden the audience considering the non-business organizations

SLH: we came to the conclusion that even non business organizations understand these business terms

JB: henk, harvey and sailesh prefer removing the term business, where do the others stand?

LC: i didn't like it at first, now i do

BM: i'm for leaving it out, it shortens the title a little

CL: i can live with both

SLH: i'm ok with "business case" or some alternative but not "web accessibility case", it doesn't make sense for me

DS: i agree with shawn

JB: no consensus on this, i'll send a mail to the group and try to find thoughts on this

JB: meanwhile try to "google" the words or look them up

SP: 'developing the (business) case for web accessibility in your organization'

JB: this has been rejected several times before, at least without the 'business' word in the middle

JB: discussion of CSR in Social Factors

JB: do we want to rephrase some questions as described (check changelog)?

LC, SP agree

CHANGELOG editors discretion to examine discussion of CSR in Social (refer JB's offline notes)

JB: any comments on navigation and the links?

CHANGELOG remove "related resources" section now we have a References page - see how it looks

SLH: there are a few outstanding issues on the overview

JB: found reading the total document a pleasurable experience and appreciated the amount of information

SLH: unlike some other documents, this resource might not be read from top to bottom but rather be picked

SLH: i think it can be longer than others for that reason

JB: please read and comment on the list

Next Meeting

Friday, 2 April 2004

Last updated on $Date: 2004/07/12 01:36:24 $ by $Author: shawn $